Case No.

21
GR No. 174105
Reghis Romero II et al vs. Jinggoy Estrada et al

Facts:
Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition with application for temporary restraining order(TRO) and
preliminary injunction under Rule 65, assailing the constitutionality of the invitations and compulsory
processes issued by the Senate Committee on Labor, Employment and Human Resources Development in
connection with its investigation on the investment of Overseas Workers Welfare Administration(OWWA) funds
in the Smokey Mountain project.

Pursuant to Resolution No. 537 and 543,Petitioner Reghis Romero II as owner of R-II Builders Inc. was
invited by the Committee on Labor, Employment and Human Resources Development to attend a public
hearing at the Senate on August 23,2006 regarding the investment of OWWA (Overseas Workers Welfare
Administration) funds in the Smokey Mountain project. The investigation is intended to aid the Senate in the
review and possible amendments to the pertinent provisions of RA 8042,The Migrant Workers Act.
Petitioner Romero in his letter-reply requested to be excused from appearing and testifying before the
Committee at its scheduled hearings of the subject matter and purpose of Philippine Senate Resolution Nos.
537 and 543. The Committee denied his request. On the same date, invitations were sent to the other six
petitioners, then members of the Board of Directors of R-II Builders Inc. requesting them to attend the
September 4,2006 Committee hearing. The next day, Senator Jinggoy Estrada as Chairman of the Committee
issued subpoena ad testificandum to petitioner Romero II directing him to appear and testify before the
Committee relative to the aforesaid Senate resolutions. The Committee later issued subpoenas to the Board of
Directors of R-II Builders Inc.

Issue:
Whether or not the subject matter of the Senate inquiry is sub judice

Ruling:
NO. The Supreme court held that the sub judice issue has been rendered moot and academic by the
supervening issuance of the en banc resolution of July 1, 2008 in GR No. 164527. An issue or a case becomes
moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so that a determination of the issue
would be without practical use and value. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the
petitioner would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Thus, there is no
more obstacle-on the ground of sub judice, assuming it is invocable to the continuation of the Committee’s
investigation challenged in this proceeding.
As stated in Arnault vs. Nazareno, the power of inquiry with process to enforce it is an essential and
appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the
absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and
where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information which is not infrequently true-
recourse must be had to others who possess it.
The court further held that when the Committee issued invitations and subpoenas to petitioners to appear
before it in connection with its investigation of its aforementioned investments, it did so pursuant to its authority
to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. This is clearly provided in Art. VI, Sec.21 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution. The court has no authority to prohibit a Senate committee from requiring persons to appear and
testify before it in connection with an inquiry in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure.
The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of
persons appearign in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. (Art. VI, Section 21 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution)
GUZMAN,SHEE-AN C.